PDaddy wrote:Obviously Leiter, but I have spoken to a few judgeseveryone on the planet who thinks the USNWR rankings are absolute garbage. Most say Harvard is the best, but some think Columbia is the best, while others say Stanford or Chicago. Yale and NYU are almost never mentioned. I have met about 50 of them over the years (a few of them federal), and not one has ever received one of the USNWR surveys. That's a bit odd.

I wonder what the sample size is; all I know is that portion has an abysmal 14% response rate (which, for something that makes up 15% of a ranking, is complete bs). Plus, I wonder how many people have little to no direct knowledge of a school, but rate it based on its reputation (I'd bet a year's tuition at Cooley that most ratings at the extreme ends, high and low, wouldn't have an objective argument for it).

sach1282 wrote:A lot of the rankings is essentially based on cumulative advantage. A school gets a name for being a "top" school, that school then attracts the best and brightest students, those students go out into the workforce and do incredible things, reinforcing the school's position on top. In my opinion, almost all of the variation between school outcomes can probably be explained by variations in the students rather than the school.

How a school got to be a "top" school in the first place varies from place to place, but once it's there, it's like fighting against an incumbent in Congress. Name recognition is just such a powerful for attracting students (or almost anything else).

You're right. I'm all for prestige and schools attracting top talent. But the rankings should also reflect what current graduates ware doing in the real world. Shouldn't the ultimate result - what lawyers accomplish in practice - actually matter as much as anything? I'm more impressed with the schools that attract students whose numbers don't necessarily appear to predict success, yet turn out real superstars every year. If Yale "could" do something, it would. Yale law is nothing but an incubator for highly intelligent but socially challenged people, despite having graduated the second coolest president in U.S. History.

Yale grads don't tend to go into practice because they are not inclined to. They are not inclined to because they can't function in that type of environment unless they are above the fray bossing everyone around. They are glorified lab rats who would get along better at Roswell. I don't care what anyone says, there's something insideous about that.

It's not like college basketball, where the schools that recruit the elite talent go out and prove their superiority every year. Yale and a few other so-called elite schools lag behind when it comes to producing the superstars who actually make a difference.

It's only one way of looking at a school's quality, but it should matter. USNWR and other ranking systems are input-based, whereas Lawdragon and Super Lawyer are output-based. All of the rankings (except for Cooleys) are useful, but none capture all of the important metrics/qualities. If such a ranking did, Yale would likely be top-15 or better, but never #1.

I also think a useful metric would be number of students who express in writing (upon law school entrance) an interest in public interest law and actually go on to practice public interest for at least five years. It would be easy to score, just mandate a completed public interest questionaire/survey for every incoming 1L and submit them to the ABA. Again, such an output metric would reflect on a school's ability to educate and influence students, and that would reflect a school's quality.

sach1282 wrote:A lot of the rankings is essentially based on cumulative advantage. A school gets a name for being a "top" school, that school then attracts the best and brightest students, those students go out into the workforce and do incredible things, reinforcing the school's position on top. In my opinion, almost all of the variation between school outcomes can probably be explained by variations in the students rather than the school.

How a school got to be a "top" school in the first place varies from place to place, but once it's there, it's like fighting against an incumbent in Congress. Name recognition is just such a powerful for attracting students (or almost anything else).

You're right. I'm all for prestige and schools attracting top talent. But the rankings should also reflect what current graduates ware doing in the real world. Shouldn't the ultimate result - what lawyers accomplish in practice - actually matter as much as anything? I'm more impressed with the schools that attract students whose numbers don't necessarily appear to predict success, yet turn out real superstars every year. If Yale "could" do something, it would. Yale law is nothing but an incubator for highly intelligent but socially challenged people, despite having graduated the second coolest president in U.S. History.

Yale grads don't tend to go into practice because they are not inclined to. They are not inclined to because they can't function in that type of environment unless they are above the fray bossing everyone around. They are glorified lab rats who would get along better at Roswell. I don't care what anyone says, there's something insideous about that.

It's not like college basketball, where the schools that recruit the elite talent go out and prove their superiority every year. Yale and a few other so-called elite schools lag behind when it comes to producing the superstars who actually make a difference.

It's only one way of looking at a school's quality, but it should matter. USNWR and other ranking systems are input-based, whereas Lawdragon and Super Lawyer are output-based. All of the rankings (except for Cooleys) are useful, but none capture all of the important metrics/qualities. If such a ranking did, Yale would likely be top-15 or better, but never #1.

I also think a useful metric would be number of students who express in writing (upon law school entrance) an interest in public interest law and actually go on to practice public interest for at least five years. It would be easy to score, just mandate a completed public interest questionaire/survey for every incoming 1L and submit them to the ABA. Again, such an output metric would reflect on a school's ability to educate and influence students, and that would reflect a school's quality.

It's only one way of looking at a school's quality, but it should matter. USNWR and other ranking systems are input-based, whereas Lawdragon and Super Lawyer are output-based. All of the rankings (except for Cooleys) are useful, but none capture all of the important metrics/qualities. If such a ranking did, Yale would likely be top-15 or better, but never #1.

Just a couple of problems with that list: First, it's skewed toward larger class sizes. Hell, this even gives Cooley an edge. The list doesn't take into account how many JD's the schools produce over time - there's no adjustment for it. The second problem is that the list isn't even over a recent period of time, making it irrelevant for someone that would be weighing choices between schools (which is the point of USN rankings). Just on the first page of the list from Hastings I see an alum from 1962; how does that have any relevance?

I agree with your point that there should be more objective factors in a school's rankings but these examples aren't feasible. And I'm not going to bother to address your opinions of Yale...

sach1282 wrote:A lot of the rankings is essentially based on cumulative advantage. A school gets a name for being a "top" school, that school then attracts the best and brightest students, those students go out into the workforce and do incredible things, reinforcing the school's position on top. In my opinion, almost all of the variation between school outcomes can probably be explained by variations in the students rather than the school.

How a school got to be a "top" school in the first place varies from place to place, but once it's there, it's like fighting against an incumbent in Congress. Name recognition is just such a powerful for attracting students (or almost anything else).

You're right. I'm all for prestige and schools attracting top talent. But the rankings should also reflect what current graduates ware doing in the real world. Shouldn't the ultimate result - what lawyers accomplish in practice - actually matter as much as anything? I'm more impressed with the schools that attract students whose numbers don't necessarily appear to predict success, yet turn out real superstars every year. If Yale "could" do something, it would. Yale law is nothing but an incubator for highly intelligent but socially challenged people, despite having graduated the second coolest president in U.S. History.

Yale grads don't tend to go into practice because they are not inclined to. They are not inclined to because they can't function in that type of environment unless they are above the fray bossing everyone around. They are glorified lab rats who would get along better at Roswell. I don't care what anyone says, there's something insideous about that.

It's not like college basketball, where the schools that recruit the elite talent go out and prove their superiority every year. Yale and a few other so-called elite schools lag behind when it comes to producing the superstars who actually make a difference.

It's only one way of looking at a school's quality, but it should matter. USNWR and other ranking systems are input-based, whereas Lawdragon and Super Lawyer are output-based. All of the rankings (except for Cooleys) are useful, but none capture all of the important metrics/qualities. If such a ranking did, Yale would likely be top-15 or better, but never #1.

I also think a useful metric would be number of students who express in writing (upon law school entrance) an interest in public interest law and actually go on to practice public interest for at least five years. It would be easy to score, just mandate a completed public interest questionaire/survey for every incoming 1L and submit them to the ABA. Again, such an output metric would reflect on a school's ability to educate and influence students, and that would reflect a school's quality.

sach1282 wrote:A lot of the rankings is essentially based on cumulative advantage. A school gets a name for being a "top" school, that school then attracts the best and brightest students, those students go out into the workforce and do incredible things, reinforcing the school's position on top. In my opinion, almost all of the variation between school outcomes can probably be explained by variations in the students rather than the school.

How a school got to be a "top" school in the first place varies from place to place, but once it's there, it's like fighting against an incumbent in Congress. Name recognition is just such a powerful for attracting students (or almost anything else).

You're right. I'm all for prestige and schools attracting top talent. But the rankings should also reflect what current graduates ware doing in the real world. Shouldn't the ultimate result - what lawyers accomplish in practice - actually matter as much as anything? I'm more impressed with the schools that attract students whose numbers don't necessarily appear to predict success, yet turn out real superstars every year. If Yale "could" do something, it would. Yale law is nothing but an incubator for highly intelligent but socially challenged people, despite having graduated the second coolest president in U.S. History.

Yale grads don't tend to go into practice because they are not inclined to. They are not inclined to because they can't function in that type of environment unless they are above the fray bossing everyone around. They are glorified lab rats who would get along better at Roswell. I don't care what anyone says, there's something insideous about that.

It's not like college basketball, where the schools that recruit the elite talent go out and prove their superiority every year. Yale and a few other so-called elite schools lag behind when it comes to producing the superstars who actually make a difference.

It's only one way of looking at a school's quality, but it should matter. USNWR and other ranking systems are input-based, whereas Lawdragon and Super Lawyer are output-based. All of the rankings (except for Cooleys) are useful, but none capture all of the important metrics/qualities. If such a ranking did, Yale would likely be top-15 or better, but never #1.

I also think a useful metric would be number of students who express in writing (upon law school entrance) an interest in public interest law and actually go on to practice public interest for at least five years. It would be easy to score, just mandate a completed public interest questionaire/survey for every incoming 1L and submit them to the ABA. Again, such an output metric would reflect on a school's ability to educate and influence students, and that would reflect a school's quality.

I support most of what you're saying. It's amazing how negative the feedback is in this forum.

sach1282 wrote:A lot of the rankings is essentially based on cumulative advantage. A school gets a name for being a "top" school, that school then attracts the best and brightest students, those students go out into the workforce and do incredible things, reinforcing the school's position on top. In my opinion, almost all of the variation between school outcomes can probably be explained by variations in the students rather than the school.

How a school got to be a "top" school in the first place varies from place to place, but once it's there, it's like fighting against an incumbent in Congress. Name recognition is just such a powerful for attracting students (or almost anything else).

You're right. I'm all for prestige and schools attracting top talent. But the rankings should also reflect what current graduates ware doing in the real world. Shouldn't the ultimate result - what lawyers accomplish in practice - actually matter as much as anything? I'm more impressed with the schools that attract students whose numbers don't necessarily appear to predict success, yet turn out real superstars every year. If Yale "could" do something, it would. Yale law is nothing but an incubator for highly intelligent but socially challenged people, despite having graduated the second coolest president in U.S. History.

Yale grads don't tend to go into practice because they are not inclined to. They are not inclined to because they can't function in that type of environment unless they are above the fray bossing everyone around. They are glorified lab rats who would get along better at Roswell. I don't care what anyone says, there's something insideous about that.

It's not like college basketball, where the schools that recruit the elite talent go out and prove their superiority every year. Yale and a few other so-called elite schools lag behind when it comes to producing the superstars who actually make a difference.

It's only one way of looking at a school's quality, but it should matter. USNWR and other ranking systems are input-based, whereas Lawdragon and Super Lawyer are output-based. All of the rankings (except for Cooleys) are useful, but none capture all of the important metrics/qualities. If such a ranking did, Yale would likely be top-15 or better, but never #1.

I also think a useful metric would be number of students who express in writing (upon law school entrance) an interest in public interest law and actually go on to practice public interest for at least five years. It would be easy to score, just mandate a completed public interest questionaire/survey for every incoming 1L and submit them to the ABA. Again, such an output metric would reflect on a school's ability to educate and influence students, and that would reflect a school's quality.

Seriously? Yale students clerk and become academics and judges because they can and because those jobs are very attractive. Most elite law students would take them if they had the chance. Why would you think they are more socially challenged than other students at top schools? What's your basis for concluding they couldn't be good practitioners if that was their only option?

Yale produces plenty of "superstars" if you include its graduates in high levels of government and the judiciary. 33% of the current Supreme Court went to Yale Law. Not bad for a school with 1/3 Harvard's enrollment. This more than makes up for it's lack of "SuperLawyers," whatever that means, before even taking into account that the link you posted does not control for class size.

sach1282 wrote:A lot of the rankings is essentially based on cumulative advantage. A school gets a name for being a "top" school, that school then attracts the best and brightest students, those students go out into the workforce and do incredible things, reinforcing the school's position on top. In my opinion, almost all of the variation between school outcomes can probably be explained by variations in the students rather than the school.

How a school got to be a "top" school in the first place varies from place to place, but once it's there, it's like fighting against an incumbent in Congress. Name recognition is just such a powerful for attracting students (or almost anything else).

You're right. I'm all for prestige and schools attracting top talent. But the rankings should also reflect what current graduates ware doing in the real world. Shouldn't the ultimate result - what lawyers accomplish in practice - actually matter as much as anything? I'm more impressed with the schools that attract students whose numbers don't necessarily appear to predict success, yet turn out real superstars every year. If Yale "could" do something, it would. Yale law is nothing but an incubator for highly intelligent but socially challenged people, despite having graduated the second coolest president in U.S. History.

Yale grads don't tend to go into practice because they are not inclined to. They are not inclined to because they can't function in that type of environment unless they are above the fray bossing everyone around. They are glorified lab rats who would get along better at Roswell. I don't care what anyone says, there's something insideous about that.

It's not like college basketball, where the schools that recruit the elite talent go out and prove their superiority every year. Yale and a few other so-called elite schools lag behind when it comes to producing the superstars who actually make a difference.

It's only one way of looking at a school's quality, but it should matter. USNWR and other ranking systems are input-based, whereas Lawdragon and Super Lawyer are output-based. All of the rankings (except for Cooleys) are useful, but none capture all of the important metrics/qualities. If such a ranking did, Yale would likely be top-15 or better, but never #1.

I also think a useful metric would be number of students who express in writing (upon law school entrance) an interest in public interest law and actually go on to practice public interest for at least five years. It would be easy to score, just mandate a completed public interest questionaire/survey for every incoming 1L and submit them to the ABA. Again, such an output metric would reflect on a school's ability to educate and influence students, and that would reflect a school's quality.

I don't think the fact that eight current SCOTUS justices graduated from H/Y necessarily demonstrates the superiority of H/Y grads. I think Presidents pick H/Y grads on purpose because they want people with really impressive sounding credentials who will get through confirmation easily. The H/Y names just universally impress people in ways that other top schools don't.

redsoxfan2495 wrote:I don't think the fact that eight current SCOTUS justices graduated from H/Y necessarily demonstrates the superiority of H/Y grads. I think Presidents pick H/Y grads on purpose because they want people with really impressive sounding credentials who will get through confirmation easily. The H/Y names just universally impress people in ways that other top schools don't.

It does mean that H/Y grads "make a difference," though. I really can't see any Senator seriously arguing against confirmation because the nominee went to a state law school if they have the other prerequisites.

If you look at the pool of Court of Appeals judges and Solicitor Generals (where most Supreme Court justices are drawn from) they do have a large % of H/Y/S, but more of those judges went to either T14 schools or local/regional schools (I did a survey as a 2L and I think the proportion is 20% HYS, 40% T14, 40% regional). I think what separates the Supreme Court nominees from the others is that the nominees tended to work in non-judicial government before being confirmed. All justices except Ginsburg had mostly government experience without a lot of private practice work. It's much easier to have this career starting out of HY.

sach1282 wrote:A lot of the rankings is essentially based on cumulative advantage. A school gets a name for being a "top" school, that school then attracts the best and brightest students, those students go out into the workforce and do incredible things, reinforcing the school's position on top. In my opinion, almost all of the variation between school outcomes can probably be explained by variations in the students rather than the school.

How a school got to be a "top" school in the first place varies from place to place, but once it's there, it's like fighting against an incumbent in Congress. Name recognition is just such a powerful for attracting students (or almost anything else).

Well - DUH

Let's use a different analogy. Because Goldman Sachs hires the best bankers, Goldman Sachs is the most profitable IBank*Because Goldman Sachs is the most profitable IBank*, the best bankers want to work at Goldman Sachs(*and therefore pays out the highest bonuses)

Yes, Goldman Sachs has a cumulative advantage, but that doesn't mean Goldman Sachs isn't the best freaking IBank in the world. Before that will change, Goldman Sachs will need to screw up pretty badly - but because they're the best, the odds of that happening are pretty freaking slim

sach1282 wrote:A lot of the rankings is essentially based on cumulative advantage. A school gets a name for being a "top" school, that school then attracts the best and brightest students, those students go out into the workforce and do incredible things, reinforcing the school's position on top. In my opinion, almost all of the variation between school outcomes can probably be explained by variations in the students rather than the school.

How a school got to be a "top" school in the first place varies from place to place, but once it's there, it's like fighting against an incumbent in Congress. Name recognition is just such a powerful for attracting students (or almost anything else).

Well - DUH

Let's use a different analogy. Because Goldman Sachs hires the best bankers, Goldman Sachs is the most profitable IBank*Because Goldman Sachs is the most profitable IBank*, the best bankers want to work at Goldman Sachs(*and therefore pays out the highest bonuses)

Yes, Goldman Sachs has a cumulative advantage, but that doesn't mean Goldman Sachs isn't the best freaking IBank in the world. Before that will change, Goldman Sachs will need to screw up pretty badly - but because they're the best, the odds of that happening are pretty freaking slim

Well, partially because of that, and partially because of their success in fraudulently offloading billions of dollars of toxic mortgage bonds on their own clients, a practice that a bipartisan senate subcommittee report called "a crime spree" consisting of "a million cases of fraud a year." But that's sort of tangential, I guess.

PigBodine wrote:Well, partially because of that, and partially because of their success in fraudulently offloading billions of dollars of toxic mortgage bonds on their own clients, a practice that a bipartisan senate subcommittee report called "a crime spree" consisting of "a million cases of fraud a year." But that's sort of tangential, I guess.

You mean that other IBs don't screw people over as well? It's a game.Basically, if they get caught 1/4 of the time, they're doing ok, because the fine is never much more than their profits on that particular issue.Take a look, you'll see that every major IB gets slapped with a "huge" fine every couple of years. It's the cost of doing business. (watch how small the fine will be compared to their revenue and/or their profit)

I've worked with several IBs and must say that there's a noticable difference between the employees at GS and those at other IBs. The firm hires (or poaches) the best and the brightest.Doesn't make 'em less arrogant - but they deliver

dingbat wrote:You mean that other IBs don't screw people over as well? It's a game.Basically, if they get caught 1/4 of the time, they're doing ok, because the fine is never much more than their profits on that particular issue.Take a look, you'll see that every major IB gets slapped with a "huge" fine every couple of years. It's the cost of doing business. (watch how small the fine will be compared to their revenue and/or their profit)

I've worked with several IBs and must say that there's a noticable difference between the employees at GS and those at other IBs. The firm hires (or poaches) the best and the brightest.Doesn't make 'em less arrogant - but they deliver

It's absolutely correct that the fines that investment banks have gotten in the last few decades have paled in comparison to the revenue that they bring in. That's due in large part to two massive programs of deregulation of banking oversight in the 1990s (spearheaded by ex-Goldman economic policy advisers to Clinton) and 2004 (spearheaded by five of the largest IBs).

That first example actually highlights the two main reasons that the massively criminal actions of most of the larger investment banks (though Goldman was by far the most egregious offender) won't ever be prosecuted -- number one being that regulatory oversight is practically nil, since the appropriate agencies simply have no mandate for enforcement actions, and number two, that there exists a revolving door between the boardroom of powerful investment banks and the federal government. If we were a society that even pretended to adhere to the principle of the rule of law, there's probably not a Goldman executive that wouldn't have been tried and convicted of fraud in the wake of the CDO fraud.

Yale will always be the top school, barring seismic methodological changes, for the same reason that Irvine is going to be a top 30 school despite having a largely non-existent reputation to date: US News severely advantages small schools, with small class sizes and high faculty-student ratios.

Schools like Harvard and Georgetown get hosed as a result, despite the fact that they're arguably bigger names because they have such powerful alumni networks. But it is what it is.

Speaking of Irvine, I also think they'll come in at high 20s, with many metrics that place them around high teens, but with the reputation factor still needing work (as it would for any school that just started 3 years ago). I think by the time we hit 2017 or so, UCI will be firmly planted in the mid-to-late teens, as the consistently high numbers begin to translate into much better reputation figures.

Never underestimate the ability of old, obscenely wealthy people to get what they want. The Orange County folks want a world class law school, and they're willing to bankroll it (what's a few million when you're worth $50 billion?).

Boourns76 wrote:Yale will always be the top school, barring seismic methodological changes, for the same reason that Irvine is going to be a top 30 school despite having a largely non-existent reputation to date: US News severely advantages small schools, with small class sizes and high faculty-student ratios.

Schools like Harvard and Georgetown get hosed as a result, despite the fact that they're arguably bigger names because they have such powerful alumni networks. But it is what it is.

Speaking of Irvine, I also think they'll come in at high 20s, with many metrics that place them around high teens, but with the reputation factor still needing work (as it would for any school that just started 3 years ago). I think by the time we hit 2017 or so, UCI will be firmly planted in the mid-to-late teens, as the consistently high numbers begin to translate into much better reputation figures.

Never underestimate the ability of old, obscenely wealthy people to get what they want. The Orange County folks want a world class law school, and they're willing to bankroll it (what's a few million when you're worth $50 billion?).

I wouldnt be surprised if UCI breaks into the top 20 (although it'll be a sad day if they do) but I'd be surprised if 10 years down the line they're still in the T30.It's a crowded field and with 4 top 20 law schools in California already, I don't think there's room for another. Just on geography, they're battling it out with USC and UCLA for top regional school and with Stanford and berkeley, CA has more top schools than NY, which is a much bigger market. (not to mention UC Davis as competitor for 5th place in the state)

Just think about the schools UCI would need to knock down a peg, such as WUSTL, BU/BC and GW.While it remains to be seen, I think the school will drop down a few notches once the hype fades away.

As for Georgetown being disadvantaged by its class size, NYU and Columbia both have massive class sizes as well, but don't seem to be disadvantaged by it.While a case can be made of Harvard v Stanford, or Georgetown's relative position at the bottom of the T14, it isn't exactly an earth shattering difference.

Boourns76 wrote:Yale will always be the top school, barring seismic methodological changes, for the same reason that Irvine is going to be a top 30 school despite having a largely non-existent reputation to date: US News severely advantages small schools, with small class sizes and high faculty-student ratios.

Schools like Harvard and Georgetown get hosed as a result, despite the fact that they're arguably bigger names because they have such powerful alumni networks. But it is what it is.

Speaking of Irvine, I also think they'll come in at high 20s, with many metrics that place them around high teens, but with the reputation factor still needing work (as it would for any school that just started 3 years ago). I think by the time we hit 2017 or so, UCI will be firmly planted in the mid-to-late teens, as the consistently high numbers begin to translate into much better reputation figures.

Never underestimate the ability of old, obscenely wealthy people to get what they want. The Orange County folks want a world class law school, and they're willing to bankroll it (what's a few million when you're worth $50 billion?).

I wouldnt be surprised if UCI breaks into the top 20 (although it'll be a sad day if they do) but I'd be surprised if 10 years down the line they're still in the T30.It's a crowded field and with 4 top 20 law schools in California already, I don't think there's room for another. Just on geography, they're battling it out with USC and UCLA for top regional school and with Stanford and berkeley, CA has more top schools than NY, which is a much bigger market. (not to mention UC Davis as competitor for 5th place in the state)

Just think about the schools UCI would need to knock down a peg, such as WUSTL, BU/BC and GW.While it remains to be seen, I think the school will drop down a few notches once the hype fades away.

As for Georgetown being disadvantaged by its class size, NYU and Columbia both have massive class sizes as well, but don't seem to be disadvantaged by it.While a case can be made of Harvard v Stanford, or Georgetown's relative position at the bottom of the T14, it isn't exactly an earth shattering difference.

Boourns76 wrote:Yale will always be the top school, barring seismic methodological changes, for the same reason that Irvine is going to be a top 30 school despite having a largely non-existent reputation to date: US News severely advantages small schools, with small class sizes and high faculty-student ratios.

Schools like Harvard and Georgetown get hosed as a result, despite the fact that they're arguably bigger names because they have such powerful alumni networks. But it is what it is.

Speaking of Irvine, I also think they'll come in at high 20s, with many metrics that place them around high teens, but with the reputation factor still needing work (as it would for any school that just started 3 years ago). I think by the time we hit 2017 or so, UCI will be firmly planted in the mid-to-late teens, as the consistently high numbers begin to translate into much better reputation figures.

Never underestimate the ability of old, obscenely wealthy people to get what they want. The Orange County folks want a world class law school, and they're willing to bankroll it (what's a few million when you're worth $50 billion?).

Yes. If being second every year is "being hosed." And rofl if you think that GULC is a bigger name than Yale.

You can call me out on this if the time ever comes, but because the rankings are so dependent upon reputation, UCI will never surpass UCLA which is firmly entrenched in the mid teens (which also includes lower t14) . I say the highest UCI can ever go is the 20's.

Just glancing at UCI's LSN for this year so far, it doesn't seem like their numbers will be up to par with the schools in the t20 or even with their numbers from previous years. Numbers wise, UCI seems more in range with schools at the bottom of the t30. Of course, this could all change based on their initial ranking. By the way, have we determined that it will definitely be ranked this year? I'm now insanely curious as to what that ranking will be, especially considering it's one of my better offers this cycle.